Com. v. Shaw, R., 246 A.3d 879

On Oct. 28, 2017, Officer Malvizzi observed a Toyota SUV pass him with no visible rear license-plate illumination and followed and stopped the vehicle for a § 4303(b) plate-light violation.
At the stop Malvizzi almost immediately detected the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle, noted Shaw’s nervousness and profuse sweating, and confirmed the car was not registered to Shaw.
Shaw refused consent to search; officers then searched the vehicle and found multiple vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana (≈ 2/3 lb) in a shopping bag on the rear seat.
Shaw was charged with possession, possession with intent to deliver, possession of paraphernalia, and the summary plate-light offense; he moved to suppress the evidence seized during the stop and search.
The suppression court denied the motion, relying on then-controlling Pennsylvania precedent (including Gary) that the smell of marijuana alone provided probable cause to search a vehicle.
While the appeal was pending, (1) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Alexander overruled Gary and required exigent circumstances (in addition to probable cause) for warrantless vehicle searches under Article I, § 8, and (2) this Court in Barr held the odor of marijuana alone is not dispositive and must be considered with other factors. The Superior Court vacated Shaw’s judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Alexander and Barr.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Shaw's Argument	Held
Validity of the traffic stop for no plate illumination (§ 4303(b))	Officer observed no plate lights in mirror and then confirmed lights were out while following—probable cause to stop.	Stop was unlawful; officer lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause.	Stop was lawful; trial court’s finding of probable cause to stop affirmed (Salter controlling).
Probable cause to search vehicle based solely on odor of marijuana (warrantless search)	Odor of marijuana established probable cause to search under then-controlling precedent (Gary); other factors (nervousness, registration) also relevant.	Search was unlawful; odor alone insufficient and no warrant or exigency existed.	Trial court’s finding that odor alone provided probable cause reversed; judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings to assess probable cause and exigency consistent with Alexander and Barr.

Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (officer may have probable cause to stop for plate-illumination violation where lights observed out)
Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (plurality) (historically held smell of marijuana could supply probable cause to search vehicle)
Commonwealth v. Barr, 240 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2020) (odor of marijuana alone is not dispositive; odor is a factor to weigh with other circumstances)
United States v. Ramos, 443 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2006) (Third Circuit recognized that smell of marijuana can establish probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503 (Pa. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)